1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2004
  6. /
  7. January

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Desh Raj Son Of Shiv Charan And Ors.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 March, 2004


1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and the connected appeals are being disposed off by a common judgment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. First Appeal No. 879/95 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in LAR No. 511 of 1990.
3. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment. By the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1993 37 references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had been disposed off. The total area of the land acquired was 184.19 bighas i.e. 115.562 acres. The date of notification under Section 4(1) as last published was 27.4.1988. The date of notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) is 6.7.1988. The date of taking over possession of the land in dispute was 28.3.1990 and the date of the award of the S.L. A.O. is 17.8 1990.
4. Eight sale deeds were executed in the last three years in respect of the village in question i.e. Village Parthala Khanjarpur, NOIDA, Ghaziabad. The highest rate at which these 8 sale deeds were executed was Rs. 7.83 per sq. yard. However, the S.L.A.O. determined compensation on the basis of the sale deed dated 22.7.1987 in respect of khasra No. 643 of 504 sq. yards in respect of neighbouring village Sorakha at the rate of Rs. 30.75 per sq yard This sale deed was in respect of a plot of an area of 504 sq. yard of village Sorakha.
5. The reference court found that there existed no sale exemplar tiled by the claimants which could be held to be comparable in nature, time and proximity justifying enhancement and hence it rightly rejected all the sale exemplars. However, the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72/- per sq. yard by relying on the award of another village Makanpur which was not even the neighbouring village and the potentialities of the land were different.
6. In our opinion the court below erred in relying on the award in respect of village Manakpur which is not even the neighbouring village when the sale deed of that very village i.e. village Parthala Khanjarpur for which the acquisition in question was made was available.
7. In Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, AIR 1992 SC 666, the Supreme Court held that in determining the market value of the land reliance should not be placed on the award of some other land. The same view was taken in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, 1998 (8) SCC 136.
8. In our opinion the judgment of the court below is patently illegal as it relied on an award of a different village which was not even a neighbouring village vide Jai Prakash v. Union of India, JT 1997 (4) SC 112.
9. In State of UP v. Shau Singh, 1995 HVD (1) page 191 (vide paragraph 11 and 17) a Division Bench of this Court held that the award which relates to the land in other villages and sale transaction in respect of other villages should be ignored.
10. Thus the settled position in law appears to be that the award or sale transaction of other villages should not ordinarily be relied upon.
11. Moreover it is well settled that exemplars of small plots of land should not be taken into consideration when a large area of land is being acquired vide Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Khushi Ram, First Appeal No. 522 of 1993 decided on 26.2.2004. In the aforesaid decision relevant decisions of the Supreme Court have also been referred.
12. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the court below dated 23.11.1993 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Desh Raj Son Of Shiv Charan And Ors.


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

31 March, 2004
  • M Katju
  • R Tripathi